Why Zimmerman is Guilty

reply to post by samkent


Sure he didn't break any laws, but he put himself in a potentially dangerous situation deliberatley and out of his own judgement. There is NO REASON for this man to have played vigilante superhero. For all he knew, Treyvon might have had a much bigger gun.

This is what happens when people with poor decision making skills have guns. He chose to get out of that car and follow that kid.

It's not like the kid was casing cars by looking in their windows, or sneaking through yards. Zimmerman just wanted to be a hero, and someone got killed. (edit to add: yes, I am aware they had an increase in break-ins, but this kid wasn't casing houses and cars as a normal suspect would)

If I was on the jury, I'd say, "Well that's it for me. So he didn't listen to professional law enforcement, and chose to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation? Yes, he made a bad call and that kid would still be alive if he hadn't made it. Guilty"

In summary, his choices of his and actions ended with someone getting killed. These facts we do know.

reply to post by Willtell


The jury looked at the evidence presented. They did not act on presumptions, which is what your argument is made up of. There is no evidence that Z had pulled his gun before the ground fight occurred. As he described the incident, he felt TM's hand going for the gun in it's holster.
You say Z is a liar and so you assume his account is automatically not true, and yet he had injuries to the back of his head and also his face, which complied with his story that TM was on top of him punching him and shoving his head into the ground.
Should the jury ignore the evidence on a 'what if" presumption?
The way I understand it, based on evidence, the only reason he was arrested at all is because the family got a bunch of activists involved and the media had a heyday with it, and even the family attorney admitted on Greta Show last night that she is a "social engineer". What does all of that tell you about this case?
Here is part of the exchange between Greta and Jasmine, starting with Greta first

“(T)he prosecution picked that jury with the defense, the prosecution agreed to that jury with the defense, the jury heard all the evidence, the prosecution didn’t get shut down for presenting any evidence as far as I know, and the jury then decided the case, and everybody was happy with that jury, and then suddenly, after the jury renders its verdict, suddenly everyone’s dissatisfied, or at least not everyone, but some are dissatisfied with the jury as though they did a lousy job or heard a different trial or didn’t listen to the case,” Van Susteren pointed out.

She then asked: “What happened? You liked the jury in the beginning.”


Rand went on to give a highly charged answer, claiming that the Martin legal team never declared satisfaction with the jury, among other things. After being confronted on inconsistencies in her statements and more, Rand admitted something truly startling.

“I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that’s to be a social engineer,” Rand declared. She went on to expound on the ideas of, essentially, civil protest.


Read more: communities.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

communities.washingtontimes.com...

So there it is, the family attorney felt a greater need to be a social engineer then to act responsibly as an attorney.

Originally posted by pavil


Regardless of what you believe, following somebody in a public place is not illegal. Really, it's not. Attacking someone physically and then mounting them and continuing the attack is. All TM had to do was keep walking home to his dad's house, he didn't have to confront then get into a fight with GZ.

You mean running home to his dad's house? Like he had been doing the entire time? Fleeing Zimmerman? Strange that he decided to stop and attack 60 seconds from his front door after fleeing for the whole time? Strange that Zimmerman gave multiple different accounts of how Trayvon "jumped" him (bushes, out of the dark, out of nowhere, front or back of the vehicle) Strange that 3 witnesses heard running on pavement before the fight broke out? Zimmerman chased down and caught Trayvon...maybe just by the arm...maybe tackled him...maybe flashed the gun...and admittedly NEVER identified who he was or why he was chasing him...It did end up near the vehicle...did wannabe cop Zimmerman tell Trayvon to get in the car? Either way Trayvon fought back as I suspect anyone would do.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


And if you were on that jury you were also ignoring evidence that TM was almost home then circled back after evading Z and jumped out at him to confront him.

The whole argument breaks down after that, and it's a good thing you weren't on the jury. You clearly had a preconceived notion that not even the circumstantial evidence would change.

Being outside of his car doesn't make it ok to be jumped. It just made it easier. I'm guessing that is the reason the cops told him to stay in his car.

Sorry, no star or flag for your thread as I remember you from the other Zimmerman thread, and know that you are simply in a state of full-blown denial.

However, with the imaginative piece of fiction you've concocted for the OP, you may want to consider writing stories for a living.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

If I was on the jury, I'd say, "Well that's it for me. So he didn't listen to professional law enforcement, and chose to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation? Yes, he made a bad call and that kid would still be alive if he hadn't made it. Guilty"

Well then you would be breaking the law.

reply to post by Indigo5


So you are saying that it was Z who chased TM and not the other way around? I wonder if the jury thought so too. Guess not. And they had all the evidence and you did not. So you think Z ambushed TM and yet he ended up on the ground with TM on top....

What people come up with to suit their viewpoint.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

And if you were on that jury you were also ignoring evidence that TM circled back after evading Z and jumped out at him to confront him.

What evidence? The only evidence that TM circled back and jumped out is Zimmerman's account...which arresting officers admit changed multiple times...form "out of nowhere" to "just out of the darkness" to "he jumped out of the bushes"...ditto with what he claims Trayvon said to him...different stories. COmbine that with multiple independant witnesses describing a foot chase...and the unliklihood that a boy that was fleeing the entire time decided to turn around and attack 60 seconds from the safety of his front door...Zimmerman started the confrontation...he chased down Trayvon...Trayvon fought back and Zimmerman shot him.

Now...can anyone prove that beyond "ANY reasonable doubt" in a court of law? No...the jury ruled correctly IMO, but I believe it happened just that way.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you are saying that it was Z who chased TM and not the other way around? I wonder if the jury thought so too. Guess not. And they had all the evidence and you did not. So you think Z ambushed TM and yet he ended up on the ground with TM on top....

An initial vote was divided. Three of the jurors first voted Zimmerman was guilty, while three voted he was not guilty.

"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there's just no way, other place to go,"

www.cnn.com...

Again there is a difference between what the evidence PROVES beyond ANY reasonable doubt...and the truth.

martin had a cell phone, if he felt in any danger he should have called the police instead of trying to play wanna be cop and attacking the property owner. In the phone call to his girlfriend he didnt sound like he was in fear for his safety. Martin was a visitor to a private community, that is private property, as a visitor on someone else`s private property he has an obligation to to answer any questions the property owner might ask him.
as a visitor on someone else`s private property he certainly didn`t have the right to attack the property owner just because he felt the property owner was being disrespectful by following him and questioning him.

The whole key to this case is that he was on private property not on a public street.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


SO...

I can arm myself, walk into the worst part of Chicago as a skinny white kid with decent clothes, get held up and shoot that person out of "self defense" even though I made a conscious choice to enter said neighborhood?

You can't claim self defense when you make a decision to knowingly put yourself in danger. That's not self defense, that's asking for trouble.

If I was on that jury all the other evidence after the fact he got out of the car should be ignored/disregarded. The case should have ended right there. The incident would not have happened if at that critical moment he chose differently. So, as a DIRECT RESULT OF HIS CHOICES/ACTIONS someone died. That's at least manslaughter to me.

"So if you would have stayed in the car like you were told, he'd be alive?

"Yes."

"OK, that's all I need to hear."

Boy oh boy, if you want to kill people and get away with it, just put yourself in a situation where there is a high probability of danger.

reply to post by samkent


Oh, I'd listen but my mind would have been made up. In my mind the other evidence doesn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

And if you were on that jury you were also ignoring evidence that TM circled back after evading Z and jumped out at him to confront him.

What evidence? The only evidence that TM circled back and jumped out is Zimmerman's account...which arresting officers admit changed multiple times...form "out of nowhere" to "just out of the darkness" to "he jumped out of the bushes"...ditto with what he claims Trayvon said to him...different stories. COmbine that with multiple independant witnesses describing a foot chase...and the unliklihood that a boy that was fleeing the entire time decided to turn around and attack 60 seconds from the safety of his front door...Zimmerman started the confrontation...he chased down Trayvon...Trayvon fought back and Zimmerman shot him.

Now...can anyone prove that beyond "ANY reasonable doubt" in a court of law? No...the jury ruled correctly IMO, but I believe it happened just that way.

The 911 call timeline proves beyond any doubt that martin had more than enough time to get to the house he was staying at, he either went to the house and came back or he hid and waited for zimmerman,who was on his way back to his car, either way martin chose to confront zimmerman instead of going home and staying there.
Nothing prevented martin from going home, he chose not to.

reply to post by Indigo5


The star witness, TM's friend said TM was almost home. If he was almost home, why didn't he just go all the way home? I know I would have.

"I thought he was going to be OK because he was right by his daddy's house, but his daddy was not home," Jeantel said as Martin's father cried in court.

If you were right by your father's house, would you just stand there and be attacked by someone jumping at you? I wouldn't. I would have run like the wind.

Did she lie when she said TM was almost home? Maybe

The defense later moved to impeach Jeantel after accusing her of telling lies under oath, including her whereabouts during Martin's wake.

abcnews.go.com...

If you believed the jury was right, then why are you arguing that Z ambushed TM and not the other way around?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So you think Z ambushed TM and yet he ended up on the ground with TM on top....

What I think? After reading every account and the laundry list of various accounts and testimony?

I think Zimmerman chased down Trayvon...

Evidence: Significantly varying accounts by Zimmerman of how he was jumped and what was said suggesting he is lieing. Plus multiple witnesses interviewed by police that they heard a foot-chase prior to the fight. People running and shouting on pavement. Plus Zimmerman had been pursuing TM with vigor even disregarding police instructions to cease...while Trayvon had been FLEEING with gusto and was only a minute from his front door.

The idea that Zimmerman suddenly decided to cease the cahse and Trayvon, steps from the shelter he had been fleeing toward decided to instead turn and attack....None of it holds water.

Zimmerman caught TM...how physical that "catching" was, no one knows but Zimmerman and TM who can no longer speak. Either way Zimmerman never told TM why he was chasing him when they spoke. ZImmerman admits this. To Trayvon...a strange man was chasing him and caught him, wouldn't tell him why...what to do? Fight.

That is what I think.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

The star witness, TM's friend said TM was almost home. If he was almost home, why didn't he just go all the way home? I know I would have.

Precisely...why almost home and after fleeing the whole time does he circle back and attack?

Cuz he didn't...same reason Zimmerman's accounts changed multiple times. Same reasons multiple witnesses heard a chase. Zimmerman caught TM and didn't expect TM to fight.

reply to post by Willtell


Ummm sorry, living in South Florida around a lot of the urban youths has led me to think that what Zimmerman claimed was not only plausible but probable.

The kid was bad news, but when has that ever stopped the Ghetto League of Justice from demanding blood.


Numerous innocent people have already been killed in the name of Trayvon Martin, I hope you are proud of yourself.

reply to post by Willtell


Primarily, Zimmerman is guilty because he said so.
He has admitted pulling the trigger and shooting Martin. This is "atleast" second degree manslaughter and should be punisable by 3-5 years in jail. (not being a lawyer from fla. this is my speculation)

Had the prosicution based their case on this "admitted fact" everyone would have come out a winner.
Sure he would have done a little jail time, a few months to a couple of years, but he would then have a cleaner slate than what he has now.
The black community would have been pleased that the system had worked and everything would have been remembered as a tragic event which happens when people are involved.

reply to post by Indigo5


Lotta "maybe's" in that post of yours. I go based on the facts that are known. We don't know for sure who started the fight, usually the one to get the first blow in. Evidence would suggest that that person was TM. Only one person had wounds from a fight.


You have a good day.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

If you believed the jury was right, then why are you arguing that Z ambushed TM and not the other way around?

There was never an ambush by anyone. There was a chase and Zimmerman caught Trayvon.

The Jury was "right" in how they ruled...given the legal demands that they must have found that the prosecution proved thier case "beyond ANY reasonable doubt"...as the defense stated in closing...if they had ANY reasonable doubts, they must find Z not guilty.

So in a jury...as often happens...folks that believe someone is guilty can still find them "not guilty" given the evidence available and the case made with that evidence leaves room for "any doubt" that he is guilty of the cahrge.